15:39:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg
15:39:50 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/10/14-pwg-irc
15:39:51 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:39:51 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Working Group Telco
15:39:51 <ivan> Chair: garth
15:39:51 <ivan> Date: 2019-10-14
15:39:51 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2019Oct/0008.html
15:39:51 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2019-10-14: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2019Oct/0008.html
15:39:52 <ivan> Regrets+ wendy, geoff, romain, Mateus, Luc, Gregorio, JuanCorona, Josh
15:57:25 <NickRuffilo> NickRuffilo has joined #PWG
15:57:31 <NickRuffilo> scribenick: nickruffilo
15:57:59 <ivan> present+
15:58:00 <Kenneth> Kenneth has joined #pwg
15:58:21 <ivan> present+ NickRuffilo
15:58:41 <ivan> present+ kenneth
15:59:45 <Teenya> Teenya has joined #pwg
15:59:57 <rkwright> rkwright has joined #pwg
16:00:29 <Teenya> present+
16:01:17 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
16:01:31 <romain> romain has joined #pwg
16:01:34 <ivan> regrets+ laurent
16:01:47 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #pwg
16:01:55 <romain> present+
16:02:03 <ivan> present+ garth
16:02:03 <dauwhe> present+
16:02:07 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #pwg
16:02:20 <ivan> present+ deborah
16:02:21 <dkaplan3> present+
16:02:23 <garth> garth has joined #pwg
16:02:25 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #pwg
16:02:29 <garth> present+ Garth
16:02:35 <BenSchroeter> present+
16:02:36 <CharlesL> present+
16:02:52 <bigbluehat> present+
16:02:57 <Avneesh> present+
16:03:37 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
16:03:49 <duga> present+
16:04:06 <rkwright> present+
16:04:25 <garth> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-10-07-pwg
16:04:53 <NickRuffilo> Garth: Approval of minutes... :: silence :: approved
16:05:04 <garth> https://github.com/w3c/audiobooks/pull/28
16:05:15 <ivan> Topic: Audiobook PR, user agent behavior
16:05:37 <NickRuffilo> ... Wendy did what she said, and there is a pull request in for user agent behavior for audiobooks.  There's a stream in the comments of the PR.  Ivan approved it.  Is there discussion?
16:06:01 <garth> q?
16:06:40 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: from my point of view, it's ok.  My comments were secondary, but the main part of the text defines minimum behavior from an audiobook reading system and I'm not the one who should say yeah or nay.
16:07:27 <marisa> marisa has joined #pwg
16:07:38 <dauwhe> q+
16:07:52 <marisa> present+
16:08:07 <NickRuffilo> ... It really needs a review from someone like Matt, or someone in the audio world.
16:08:13 <garth> q?
16:08:16 <duga> q+
16:08:40 <ivan> ack dauwhe
16:08:50 <NickRuffilo> Dave: I am just starting to look at this and have also been building little scripts that implement some of this.  In general, I find it much harder to comment on pull requests than just the editors draft.  We can merge it and then comment
16:09:01 <George> George has joined #pwg
16:09:02 <NickRuffilo> ... I don't think in the context, merging something is not a final endorsement
16:09:06 <garth> q?
16:09:10 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: for the record, I'm fine as well
16:09:19 <George> present+
16:09:31 <NickRuffilo> Garth: I don't care if we merge it or not, but I wanted to have the opportunity to review it.  I'd like to have a chance to look at it.
16:09:58 <garth> q?
16:10:04 <NickRuffilo> ... I'm personally in Dave's camp that it's easier to read as a pretty HTML document than a DIFF, so if folks are OK - we will merge and then comment/review from there in the editor's draft.
16:10:06 <garth> ack duga
16:10:49 <NickRuffilo> Brady: You don't have to DIFF - you can click to view the whole file including the changes - so you can review whatever you wish.
16:10:51 <garth> q?
16:11:06 <garth> q?
16:11:09 <NickRuffilo> Garth: as Ben points out, 2.4 is new.  I'm happy to merge or leave people to review.
16:11:20 <ivan> q+
16:11:48 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: I am a little uncomfortable to merge myself - Wendy should do it when and if she feels comfortable with this.  We should say it's OK, but leave her to do that.
16:12:08 <NickRuffilo> Garth: Absolutely.  Wendy is not on the call, so she should get a bunch of additional action items ^_^ (laughs)
16:12:30 <garth> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/101
16:12:50 <ivan> Topic: Lack of conformsTo too draconian?
16:13:12 <garth> q?
16:13:15 <NickRuffilo> Garth: There has been quite a bit of commentary on this.  Matt and Ivan having a few, Ivan do you want to comment here?
16:13:56 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: I feel uncomfortable without Matt - the point is that 'conformsTo' cames into the standard not too long ago (september?) but what we realized is how it actually works is missing.  The current official standard is draconian...
16:14:12 <garth> q?
16:14:17 <garth> ack ivan
16:14:41 <NickRuffilo> ... it requires a list of references to specifications that the document conforms to.  If it's missing, everything stops and the user agent is supposed to return an error and finish.  My original is that 'isn't that harsh' but then it's how exactly does the usage work?
16:15:41 <ivan> -> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/101#issuecomment-541586580 conformsTo mechanism
16:16:08 <NickRuffilo> ivan: the clarification was around what we expect from conformsTo...  What I did this morning was to write down what I see - I just put it on IRC - I put there a mechanism that is not yet reflected in any of the documents.  It's a reasonable behavior for a conforms to.  I haven't gotten a reply or comment yet.
16:16:25 <NickRuffilo> ... I can summarize what I wrote there, or people can read it and comment there.  Thats where we are.
16:16:30 <NickRuffilo> Garth: You do have 1 thumbs up...
16:16:35 <dauwhe> q+
16:16:37 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: Which is more than 0...
16:16:58 <NickRuffilo> Garth: What would you like to be the next step?  ... OK there is a PR version of this...
16:17:13 <garth> q?
16:17:18 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: There is a PR of the preview status.  We're in a situation where there is an outstanding PR and the issue is on that one...
16:17:26 <NickRuffilo> ... so it's not yet fully fleshed out in any text.
16:17:26 <garth> ack dauwhe
16:18:05 <NickRuffilo> Dave: I am uneasy about the 'draconian' aspect of this.  Thinking from the perspective of a web-dev who gets some audiobook who has the manifest.  What i'm most interested in is going and getting the reading order.  That's the most important thing to present the user with what I want..
16:18:21 <ivan> q+
16:18:26 <NickRuffilo> ... so now I have to have an if statement that if the conformsTo isn't there, the user can't listen to the audiobook, even if everything else is there...
16:18:33 <garth> ack ivan
16:19:24 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: The discussion is around that - I was asking the same question.  Formally and spec wise - what came up is a possibility is to have a kind of 0-level conformance reference.  Which is saying the manifest conforms to what we describe in this text (publication manifest)
16:19:45 <garth> q?
16:19:58 <NickRuffilo> ... and this is the minimal thing.  The UA can say : "i can do something with this" but another UA might say it can do something more and needs a higher conformance.
16:20:34 <garth> q?
16:20:35 <NickRuffilo> ... what I also consider is that this value - the basic conformance reference is a default value.  If someone doesn't put anything, then this is always there and the user agent can do something with that.  Please go through the text and see if that makes sense.
16:21:04 <NickRuffilo> Garth: Ivan, I'm looking now and i want to make sure I understand.  IN the top bullet, if it's missing, it's a fatal error, but we could possibly override with a default?
16:21:12 <garth> q?
16:21:13 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: I have some notes, and the last point there would modify that step.
16:21:22 <bigbluehat> q+
16:21:34 <garth> q?
16:21:37 <NickRuffilo> Garth: I'm personally with Dave that, having a non-fatal error and being able to pull out reading order seems good to me.
16:21:46 <garth> ack bigbluehat
16:22:02 <garth> q?
16:22:15 <NickRuffilo> Ben: I am wondering if someone can make a case for the draconian approach.  I agree with Dave that there is a real danger here of creating an infinite number of profiles that are incompatible by a generic reader...
16:22:30 <garth> q?
16:22:56 <NickRuffilo> ... ultimately I don't think anyone would actually conform to it - it should be a signal.  If something gets stuck in there that is non-conformant, who cares - the consumer just wishes to read the book.  If the reader can read it, that's what's important
16:23:12 <garth> q?
16:23:13 <NickRuffilo> ... if there is a good reason to force this, let us know...
16:23:58 <garth> q?
16:24:07 <NickRuffilo> Garth: it sounds like that we like the default value so maybe we should lean that way on the call and ask Ivan to draft something that goes in that direction as a PR.  It's me or Matt
16:24:26 <garth> q?
16:24:32 <NickRuffilo> Garth: There is the whole issue with Matt not being on the call, but I leave it to you to decide on that
16:25:09 <ivan> Topic: update manifest processing to use infra types
16:25:14 <garth> [5] https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/101
16:25:15 <garth> [6] https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/98
16:25:16 <garth> [7] https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/104
16:25:40 <NickRuffilo> ... There are 2 issues in this pull request - this is also one that Ivan and Matt have...
16:25:48 <garth> q?
16:25:49 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: The work was done by Matt.
16:26:22 <ivan> -> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/pull/103 PR referenc e
16:26:38 <NickRuffilo> Garth: The 3rd link is not correct - it should have been the pull request.  Ivan linked to 103 - the pull request.
16:26:45 <garth> [6] https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/98
16:26:46 <garth> [7] https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/issues/104
16:26:47 <garth> [8] https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/pull/103
16:26:57 <ivan> github-bot, bye
16:26:57 <github-bot> github-bot has left #pwg
16:27:09 <NickRuffilo> ... Does anyone on the call want to run through this and hope to get to a consensus?
16:27:09 <garth> q?
16:27:33 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: I know there are family issues, but I would prefer romain to comment on this as he was the one initiating this whole work and can give a more appropriate background.
16:28:32 <NickRuffilo> Romain: Basically it originated from trying to get rid of the webIGL as a way to describe a datastructure.  In trying to harmonize the various manifests in the W3C, we wanted to use infra-types to represent the data structure.  Matt's editing the spec to replace webIGL for infra types.
16:28:33 <garth> q?
16:28:45 <ivan> -> https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/ Infra standard
16:29:15 <NickRuffilo> ... The WebIDL representative is moved to informative edits.  A few different issues were reaised when we looked at the algorithm.  I think it's clearer now, but we need more reviews there.  It will be interesting to have more.
16:29:19 <ivan> q+
16:29:40 <NickRuffilo> Garth: Looking at the PR, Romain you have one requested change outstanding and Ivan has approved it.  Ivan...
16:29:40 <garth> ack ivan
16:30:11 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: I am now repeating what Dave said earlier.  This was a pretty large change that made the document better and Matt did great work.  Now it becomes difficult to discuss other issues and details with this as a PR.
16:30:24 <romain> I think my requests have been addressed in Matt's latest changes
16:30:31 <garth> q?
16:30:40 <NickRuffilo> ... I would be in favor of merging this ASAP (as soon as Matt is comfortable) then we can comment and modify once it's in.  Again, this is something he should do...
16:30:42 <garth> q?
16:31:00 <garth> q?
16:31:07 <romain> +1 on merging and doing more reviews/changes based on Matt's work
16:31:13 <NickRuffilo> Garth: Sounds good for me.  If there are subsequent changes, they will be smaller.  Barring objection, why don't we go ahead and put that as a request for Matt...
16:31:22 <garth> q?
16:31:51 <ivan> Topic: horizontal review results
16:31:51 <Avneesh> q+
16:32:08 <NickRuffilo> Garth: external group reviews on tech.  Avneesh - I did see some comments from you.
16:33:00 <NickRuffilo> Avneesh: Jason has some comments, which Wendy already corrected.  He's concerned about a non-normative reference to sync-media.  It should be a recommendation or on the rec-track.  Discussions in this group was that it's possible to have a reference to a CG note, so if Ivan can provide a clarification...
16:33:03 <garth> q?
16:33:07 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: Where should I make that comment?
16:33:10 <garth> ack  Avneesh
16:33:16 <NickRuffilo> Avneesh: I copied you in the email.  I will forward you the email.
16:33:26 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: I will - it goes beyond our charter to do that so we can't do that right now.
16:33:40 <garth> q?
16:33:43 <NickRuffilo> Garth: Sounds like that is close to resolved, so that's awesome.  Ivan or Brady, and comments on Ping?
16:33:54 <NickRuffilo> Brady: I have not heard anything...
16:33:57 <garth> q?
16:34:00 <NickRuffilo> Garth: Is silence consent?
16:34:06 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: We have on record for Ping to reply
16:34:20 <NickRuffilo> Brady: I believe so, but I'm not sure what form we filled out.  We filed a bug and shared it with them...
16:34:23 <garth> q?
16:34:51 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: Once we are done with everything else and we're ready to go to CR, if we are there, if they haven't replied... but as far as I know, we did have discussions with them and we have no pending requests with them...
16:34:59 <NickRuffilo> Garth: OK - that sounds promising.
16:35:11 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: the IATN officially have considered the review as complete
16:35:21 <ivan> Topic: testing report
16:35:29 <garth> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nprN-8z2mRcmxkdWCN5Cz6-iNGl2BKCWQMxRZE2LbN4/edit#gid=0
16:35:30 <garth> 
16:35:35 <NickRuffilo> Garth: Lastly, Benjamin is on the agenda for the testing report.  Not sure if there's a google doc that Benjamin wants to talk about - go...
16:35:58 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: The update I can give so far is that we think there is a path forward for using the web annotation tests.
16:36:13 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/apache/incubator-annotator/blob/master/test/data-model.js
16:36:21 <ivan> +1 to bigbluehat if that works
16:36:31 <garth> q/
16:36:31 <NickRuffilo> ... The apache annotator project runs one or more JSON shemas against inputs given.  The plan right now is to extract the pasted file - put it into our repo - then run a bunch of sample files against the schema
16:36:32 <garth> q?
16:36:55 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/pub-manifest/tree/master/schema
16:37:03 <NickRuffilo> ... there is a whole other task that would connect this to whatever reporting mechanism we want to use.
16:37:11 <garth> q?
16:37:12 <NickRuffilo> ... I believe audiobooks may have it's own schema
16:37:24 <garth> q?
16:38:09 <bigbluehat> q+
16:38:13 <NickRuffilo> Garth: any other input?  The document I pasted earlier, wendy took the first pass of Shoulds and Musts...  This is for pub manifest but this wants to get fleshed out for audiobooks...  And maybe it has been...
16:38:22 <garth> q?
16:38:26 <NickRuffilo> ... Maybe this is further fleshed out since last I looked at it, which will help drive testing.
16:38:31 <garth> ack bigbluehat
16:38:57 <ivan> q+
16:39:23 <NickRuffilo> Benjamin: One of the things this spreadsheet should  provide relative to the items is what we define as a must/should that is beyond a schema.  It won't test processing algorithm conformance.  We don't have a way to know whether or not someone has done a proper internal representation.  Those are some possibilities.
16:39:33 <garth> ack ivan
16:40:26 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: Just for those who may not have seen it, there's a pretty cool addition to the editing environment.  If you go to the editor's draft, in the upper right-hand corner, one is 'respec' the other is 'rec list' - so on the left panel you have the TOC and a list of requirements of must/should and it extracts from the documents.
16:40:39 <garth> q?
16:40:56 <NickRuffilo> Garth: Which is going to be the source of truth?
16:41:11 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: the goal is to help to set up the right test cases - because it extracts what has to be tested.
16:41:30 <garth> q?
16:41:48 <NickRuffilo> Garth: Any other topics?
16:41:51 <garth> q?
16:42:13 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #pwg
16:42:21 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:42:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/10/14-pwg-minutes.html ivan
16:42:21 <ivan> zakim, bye
16:42:21 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:42:21 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:42:21 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been ivan, NickRuffilo, kenneth, Teenya, romain, garth, dauwhe, deborah, dkaplan, BenSchroeter, CharlesL, bigbluehat, Avneesh, duga,
16:42:21 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwg
16:42:21 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has left #pwg